Upload
david-wicks
View
2.339
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This session will report on findings from a three-year study that explored how different communication tools may impact small group collaborative learning projects in an online course. The primary goal of this session is to share successful techniques for organizing and facilitating small group collaborative projects in online and blended courses.
Citation preview
Students' Perception of Collaborative Small Group Projects Using Synchronous and Asynchronous Tools
David WicksAndrew Lumpe
Arthur EllisSeattle Pacific University
2
Abstract
This session will report on findings from a three-year study that explored how different communication tools may impact small group collaborative learning projects in an online course. The primary goal of this session is to share successful techniques for organizing and facilitating small group collaborative projects in online and blended courses.
3
Central purpose: Compare graduate students' perceptions and practices of collaborative small group work in three different sections of the same online course.
Section A Super Wiki
n=27
Section BWiki
n=24
Section CDiscussion Board-Only
n=21Asynchronous DiscussionBlackboard Discussion Board
✔ ✔ ✔
Asynchronous WikiLearning Objects Wiki
✔ ✔
Synchronous Word Processing/ChatTypeWith.Me
✔
Same Professor ✔ ✔ ✔Same Course ✔ ✔ ✔
4
Goal of Education: Develop Expertise
Develop expertise (Bransford,1999).
Experts have more access to content
Easily retrieve content
Can adapt and change, and recognize when to
apply knowledge
Collaborative learning environments are
designed to develop expertise by:
Helping users discern patterns
Create meaning in non-static,
collaborative settings
Within such environments:
Deep factual knowledge bases can
be developed
Knowledge easily retrieved and shared
Conceptual frameworks built
5
Project-based approach
Challenging question/task
Shared goal/purpose Long term
Group members negotiating
shared meaningStudent voice Deliverables
produced
http://bie.org
6
Instrument - Community of InquiryElements Categories Indicators (examples only)
Cognitive Presence Triggering Event Sense of puzzlement
Exploration Information exchange
Integration Connecting ideas
Resolution Apply new ideas
Social Presence Affective Expression Expression of emotion
Open Communication Risk-free expression
Group Cohesion Encouraging collaboration
Teaching Presence Instructional Management Defining & initiating discussion topics
Building Understanding Sharing personal meaning
Direct Instruction Focusing discussion
Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000, p. 4Swan, K., Shea, P., Richardson, J., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. B., 2008
7
Teaching Presence
• The design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing personally meaningful and educational worthwhile learning outcomes.
• Course Examples– Collaborative Script– Project Phases
http://communitiesofinquiry.com/teachingpresence
8
Collaborative Scripthttp://tinyurl.com/collab-script
9
Phases
Phase 5: Final
Product and team reflection
Phase 4: Essay- Meaningful student learning?
Classroom as a place of reflective
practice?
Phase 3: Essay-
Student needs?
What does a good
classroom look like?
Phase 2: Essay- Why
teach? Qualities of a good teacher?
Phase 1: Team charter
10
11
12
Social Presence
• Ability of participants to identify with the group or course of study, communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop personal and affective relationships progressively by way of projecting their individual personalities (Garrison, 2011, p.34)
• Course Examples– Team Charter– Private Journal
13
Team Charter
Palloff and Pratt, 2010
14
Private Journal
15
Cognitive Presence
Collaborate on Deliverable
(Charter, Essay, or Presentation)
Complete Deliverable, Reflect on process
Review Collaborative
Script Questions
Post to Personal Area, Outline Collaborative
Response
Practical Inquiry Model
Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000)
16
Sections were compared on their perception of teaching, cognitive, and social presence in the course using the Community of Inquiry Survey
• There is a significant difference between the Wiki and Discussion Board-Only sections on the Open Communication subscale of Social Presence. The specific subscale questions are:– I felt comfortable conversing through the online
medium. – I felt comfortable participating in the course
discussions. – I felt comfortable interacting with other course
participants.
17
18
Super Wiki Section Reflection
“In our opinion our products all turned out very well! The process for all of them went well too. We did a good job getting organized and all putting our fair share of work and effort into each product. The process of this project was dependent on both our individual thoughts and our ability to collaborate to create a product. The essays contained individual thoughts from each of us. They and the final presentation would not have been as thorough if only one of us had contributed to the project. In addition, the group had exceptional ideas and were able to articulate them. There was also mutual respect for each others’ opinions which resulted in a comprehensive product.”
19
Wiki Section Reflection
“I was very pleased with how our team worked together. We were all supportive of each other. When others needed assistance another team member always stepped up to help. We listened to everyone's ideas and everyone contributed to the project equally.”
20
Discussion Board-Only Reflection
“Our team was not completely balanced. One person was dealing with family, job and health issues and was only there for part of the time. The other member was very much an achiever. Part of me felt that even though I was contributing I just didn't have ownership in the project.”
21
Charter & Phases
“I just want to reiterate how much of a difference the team charter made in this group. I am used to getting saddled with lazy groups and negatively expected the same of this group at the start. Because I quickly saw that I was in an effective, skilled group, the team charter with the roles that we defined for each phase at the start, kept me from taking over the group like the control freak that I am--I knew that I had to stay within the boundaries of my role. Again, this group project proved far my valuable than my initial, pessimistic expectations.”
From Wiki Section
22
Nine Collaboration Tips
Collaborative Script Authentic Project Collaboration vs. Cooperation
Team size
Phases• Multiple Points of
Assessment• Individual and
Collaborative Assessment
Team Charter• Communication• Goals• Deadlines• Deliverables
Individual and Group Areas for Content and
Reflection
Use of Tools• Discussion Board• LMS Wiki vs. Public Wiki• Collaborative Word
Processor (Super Wiki)
Length of Project
Comments or Questions?
David WicksAssistant Prof
Director ofInstructional Technology
Seattle Pacific [email protected]
Blog: http://dwicksspu.wordpress.comTwitter: dwicksspu
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
Andrew LumpeAssociate Dean
School of EdSeattle Pacific U
[email protected]: http://lumpe.wordpress.com
Twitter: lumpea